3 ms·

That the box starts out empty is an assumption based on shared cultural context, not a hallucination. If you give someone that question and then say "wrong, the

• TeMPOraL 3y ago
  > That the box starts out empty is an assumption based on shared cultural context, not a hallucination. Sure, in the exact same way LLM operates within context of everything it learned. It so happens that it's "cultural context" is derived from ours, by means of the training data, which is why it's so similar. > If you give someone that question and then say "wrong, there was already a ball in the box!" they're not going to say "haha, silly me, I hallucinated" And yet people are doing that to LLMs. "Haha, look at that LLM hallucinating", where half the time the prompt is misleading or wrong. > they're going to stop hanging out with you. That's the social equivalent of RLHF.
  • maximus-decimus 3y ago
    > And yet people are doing that to LLMs. "Haha, look at that LLM hallucinating", where half the time the prompt is misleading or wrong. I mean... I ask it to give me Python code and it gives me code that doesn't work and makes up libraries that don't actually exist. That's not a prompt problem. A human would understand there's an implicit "code that actually works and isn't pulled out of your ass".
    • harimau777 3y ago
      Could that be similar to how most people have a few bugs in the first draft of their code; particularly when writing from memory (e.g. during a whiteboard interview)? For example, I always have to lookup whether the function is Array.every or Array.some in JavaScript. That doesn't seem too different than making up a library to me.
    • _ea1k 3y ago
      If you make the human write the code on a whiteboard without a python interpreter, they are likely to occasionally make up libraries that don't exist. The LLM is operating similarly in a lot of cases. It doesn't have an IDE with intellisense acting as an immediate feedback mechanism.
      • SirMaster 3y ago
        But when you ask the LLM where you can read about the library it's referencing (that it made up), it then makes up a URL for it that has never existed, (at least according to the internet archive). A human certainly doesn't do that in my experience. Apparently LLMs know when they are making stuff up (or so I keep getting told that over and over by others here). But clearly they are terrible at communicating about when they are making things up which is a big problem to me. I wish they would just say when they don't know something rather than make up BS. Plenty of humans are perfectly capable of acknowledging when they don't know something.
  • mminer237 3y ago
    It's not really the same. An LLM doesn't understand its context and doesn't have a notion of true or false. If it were just repeating things from its cultural context, it shouldn't invent libraries or court cases that don't exist in its context. And unlike a human, if you ask if for details on something non-existent, it will continue elaborating on this thing that it's creating out of thin air. It's not really making assumptions so much as to it these things really exist. And ChatGPT will directly contradict the prompt even. I asked it yesterday what the value of a non-interest-bearing bond is and it replied that it's valuable because of the interest you collect from it just because that's the usual answer.